/lit/ - Literature

>>19919703

So true! Why do pseuds seethe so much at this quotation nicely shrink-wrapped for Internet sharing?

>>18609366
It's because Kantians engage in a bunch of special-pleading linguistic tricks to arrive at moral destinations they've already desired they wish to visit. If you give your maxim as "lying to save a life," Kantians insist on minimizing that maxim to "lying" and _then_ applying the universalization criterion of the categorial imperative. By the same logic, "possessing a good heart" fails the universalization criterion because, minimizing to "possessing," if everyone possessed, then we might have a situation in which everyone possesses contraband.
There's also special pleading in the universalization process itself. All kinds of arbitrary logical acrobatics and contortions are permitted when establishing a failed universalization for a maxim a Kantian has already decided shouldn't be permitted, but if you perform the same arbitrary logical acrobatics and contortions to argue against a goodie-goodie Kantian maxim, suddenly -- oh, suddenly! -- you're arguing in bad faith.